Reasons Against the Succession of the House of Hanover: With an Enquiry How Far the Abdication of King James, Supposing It to Be Legal, Ought to Affect the Person of the Pretender

In Short

Daniel Defoe's 1713 political pamphlet uses biting, deadpan irony to mock the Jacobite argument against the Protestant succession of the House of Hanover. Posing as an overzealous partisan, Defoe sarcastically argues that Britain should welcome the Catholic Pretender, James Francis Edward Stuart. He reasons that a dose of French tyranny and popery will act as a "drastic medicine" to cure the nation of its political apathy. Grounded in eighteenth-century succession debates, the work survives as a masterclass in satire, demonstrating how political extremist logic can be dismantled by taking its premises to their logical, absurd extremes.

The Story

The text unfolds as a sustained exercise in ironical argumentation, aimed at exposing the absurdities of those who oppose the Protestant succession of the House of Hanover. Defoe opens by adopting the persona of a frustrated commentator complaining about the obsessive national debate over Queen Anne’s successor. Pointing out that the Queen is not yet fifty years old and suffers only from the gout—a disease that might allow her to linger for decades—the writer asks why the nation must plunge into immediate wrangling, ruining its trade, social harmony, and Christian charity over a distant political question.

Having established this exasperated tone, the text shifts into a series of increasingly absurd "reasons" why Britons should reject the House of Hanover. First, the author claims that Great Britain is so hopelessly divided by factional strife that any Hanoverian prince who attempted to rule would be crippled, just as King Augustus of Poland was ruined and forced to abdicate when caught between warring domestic factions and foreign enemies.

Next, the argument turns to the doctrine of absolute hereditary right. The narrator sarcastically points to the reign of Queen Mary I, praising the sixteenth-century Protestants who chose to accept a Catholic monarch and risk burning at the stake rather than violate the strict line of royal succession. The pamphlet argues that modern Protestants ought to show the same zeal, asserting that it is far better to become papists, burn at the stake, or suffer French slavery than to be "traitors" to a lawful hereditary line.

Expanding on this logic, the pamphlet proposes that taking in a popish prince serves as a necessary "French vomit" or medicinal poison to cleanse the British body politic. Just as severe natural illnesses require desperate remedies like amputation or poison, the British public needs a taste of French galleys and wooden shoes to teach them the true value of a Protestant monarch. Furthermore, the writer dismisses worries about widespread perjury regarding the oath of abjuration, arguing that breaking the literal oath to bring in the Pretender is entirely justified if the internal intention is to eventually force him out again.

Finally, the text sheds its heavy ironic mask to address the common people directly on constitutional law. It refutes the Jacobite claim that the Pretender's right is absolute due to his birth. By fleeing to France with his son, King James II refused to let a free parliament judge the child's legitimacy, thereby abdicating the throne and forfeiting his family's claim. Citing historical precedent from the deposition of Richard II, the author concludes that the British Parliament possesses the absolute legislative authority to limit the crown's succession. Therefore, rejecting the Hanoverian settlement established by Parliament and Queen Anne is nothing short of treason.

How It Unfolds

Anxious about the future The narrator questions why the country is tearing itself apart over Queen Anne's successor when the monarch is under fifty and likely to live for decades. He laments that domestic strife has invaded kitchens, parlours, and shops, destroying Christian charity and national harmony.

The warning of Poland Drawing a comparison to foreign affairs, the author argues that the Elector of Hanover would be foolish to step into Britain's factional chaos. He points to King Augustus of Poland, who was ruined and forced to abdicate because a divided nation could not defend him against Swedish power and a competing pretender.

Lessons from Mary Tudor The text sarcastically praises sixteenth-century Protestants who accepted Queen Mary's Catholic rule out of strict devotion to hereditary right. The writer suggests that modern Britons should similarly prefer burning at the stake or submitting to Spanish tyranny over breaking the divine line of succession.

The French medicine In a peak of biting irony, the author proposes that accepting the Catholic Pretender is a necessary "physic" or poison to cure the nation's political decay. He claims Britons must experience French galleys and wooden shoes firsthand to truly appreciate the value of a Protestant successor.

Justifying broken oaths Addressing the problem of widespread perjury, the narrative mockingly excuses those who break the oath of abjuration. It argues that if one brings in a Catholic king with the secret intention of eventually spewing him out, the underlying spirit of the oath remains uncorrupted.

Constitutional reality Dropping the ironic framing, the argument turns to parliamentary history and King James II's abdication. By fleeing to France, James forfeited his claim, leaving Parliament with the full legal authority to exclude his son and settle the succession on the House of Hanover.

The People

• Daniel Defoe (The Author / Persona)

Writing through a deadpan, satirical persona, he pretends to offer logical reasons to reject the House of Hanover. His true objective is to expose the danger and absurdity of Jacobite ideology, defending Parliament's right to limit the royal succession.

• The Pretender (James Francis Edward Stuart)

The Catholic son of the deposed King James II, whose potential ascension threatens the nation's Protestant establishment. He represents the danger of foreign French influence and absolute monarchical rule.

• The Elector of Hanover (George Louis)

The designated Protestant heir to the British throne. In the text's ironic framing, he is depicted as a prince who would be foolish to risk his safety in a nation so hopelessly fractured by party strife.

• King James II

The deposed Catholic monarch whose flight to France is framed as a voluntary abdication. His refusal to submit his son's legitimacy to a free parliament permanently severed his lineage's legal right to the crown.

• King Richard II

A medieval English monarch cited as a legal precedent. His formal resignation and subsequent deposition by Parliament prove that the legislature holds the historical right to declare the throne vacant and name a successor.

• The Common People of Britain

The target audience of the political propaganda. Depicted as easily misled by Jacobite claims of hereditary right, they are urged to recognize that Parliamentary law, not divine birthright, guarantees their liberties.

In Its Own Voice

The narrator begins by highlighting the absurdity of tearing the nation apart over an impending royal death that may not happen for decades. "I have heard wise people say the queen is not fifty years old, that she has no distemper but the gout, that that is a long-life disease, which generally holds people out twenty, or thirty, or forty years; and let it go how it will, the queen may well enough linger out twenty or thirty years, and not be a huge old wife neither."

The author uses an ironic medical metaphor to suggest that a terrifying dose of foreign tyranny might be the only way to awaken the public. "Even let him come that we may see what slavery means, and may inquire how the chains of French galleys hang about us, and how easy wooden shoes are to walk in; for no experience teaches so well as that we buy dearest, and pay for with the most smart."

The pamphlet grounds its constitutional conclusion in historical precedent, quoting the medieval parliamentary record to prove its point. "That the throne was vacant by the voluntary cession and just deposition of King Richard II., and that therefore, according to their undoubted power and right so to do, they ought forthwith to the naming a successor to fill the said throne..."

What It's Really About

At its core, the pamphlet is an attack on the doctrine of divine hereditary right and the dangerous political cynicism of the Jacobite movement. Defoe targets the absurd logic of Protestants who align with Catholic absolutism, demonstrating that prioritizing strict bloodline succession over religious and political liberty leads directly to national self-destruction. Beyond the immediate 1713 succession crisis, the work examines the nature of political propaganda and public gullibility. By taking his opponents' arguments to their logical extremes—suggesting that oppression, tyranny, and French galleys are useful national remedies—Defoe exposes how party zeal can lead citizens to actively vote against their own self-preservation and civil freedoms.

Why Read It Today

This brief pamphlet offers a masterclass in political satire from one of English literature's pioneer journalists. Readers who enjoy political commentary, Augustan-era history, or the sharp deadpan humor of Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal will find Defoe's ironical style deeply entertaining. The text captures the raw, chaotic texture of early eighteenth-century British politics, where tavern debates, conspiracy theories, and fears of foreign invasion dominated everyday life.

Reading the work requires some patience with eighteenth-century rhetorical conventions, archaic phrasing, and dense references to period politics—such as the War of the Spanish Succession, foreign pretenders in Poland, and medieval legal precedents. However, because the pamphlet is short, its central joke remains accessible and remarkably modern. Defoe’s brilliant depiction of a public so blinded by partisan anger that it considers self-sabotage as a political strategy feels shockingly relevant to contemporary political discourse. It serves as a sharp, enduring reminder of what happens when ideological purity overrides basic common sense.